Review by Edward Tanguay April 16, 1996

Ugh! What a book. I think I got lost in the mediaeval forest on this one, which is actually easy to do as there is really no action until more than half way through when they are all in de Beouf's castle as prisoners. SO much background and SO many tedious descriptions of clothing and this and that. And Scott's language doesn't entertain as Fielding's does. There were few descriptions which came alive for me, the best being, though, when Ulrica went down with the burning castle!

The manica figure of the Saxon Ulrica was for a long time visible on the lofty stand she had chosen, tossing her arms abroad with wild exultation, as if she reigned empress of the conflagration which she had raised. At length, with a terrific crash, the whole turret gave way, and she perished in the flames which had consumed her tyrant. An awful pause of horror silenced each murmur of the armed spectators, who, for the space of several minutes, stirred not a finger, save to sign the cross.

The motion was slow, the characters were shallow (Did we once ever get facts on what someone was THINKING? Every character seemed fully described only by his or her actions). The language and the topic was inaccesssible to me due to my lack of knowledge of the middle ages and the history of that time and the sources from which Scott drew many of his scenes and characters. This book also presents a vocabulary challenge to the native speaker of English ("we have been at our orisons all night") and it is a two-read book. I have the feeling it would be must more enjoyable if one read this after reading a number of other texts including histories from that time.

I liked a number of story-telling techniques that Scott used, especially the orientation around the knock and the bugle call so as to tell more than one story that is happening at one time which have a common event which links them in time. I also liked the way Rebecca described the battle to Ivanhoe and in so doing we were able to hear her view of war and than having it interpreted by Ivanhoe. I like that. The flashbacks in this novel just slowed down an already slow plot, though.

I liked the black knight and hermit scene. That was a fun scene with the start of characteristics coming out in the two (the hermit hiding his real personality and the two-layered religious/carnal aspect of their proceedings that night!).

The morals of those people back then were horrendous. The bigotry of the Templars, the treatment of Jews and women and other races and servants, the torturing. It made you sick after awhile. I wonder in what capacity Scott was trying to make a moral statement about the times.

I think Rebecca was the star of this novel and Bois-Guilbert the Grand Oaf. I respected her statement to him when he was still bothering her after getting her into all that trouble: "Farewell--I waste no more words on thee; the time that remains on earth to the daughter of Jacob must be otherwise spent . . . "). She was one of the only ones (maybe Ivanhoe as well?) who had any sense of personal virtue. Even King Richard was goofing off in the forest instead of fulfilling his destiny as King of England. Robin Hood was cool, but didn't really fit into the story as a character. He was just good to have a an excellent archer who always does the right thing.

One of the themes of this story is pertinent for our times: we need to forget our ancestry and races and learn to live together in some other capacity. No one needs to be a grand hero and slay the Enemie and fight for his Race or for his God (Ivanhoe doesn't kill Bois-Guilbert at the end--he dies from internal strife).

This is not one of my favorite books. That's for sure. But I'm glad I read it because it is referred to often in other literature and it deals with a subject that was very foreign to me. So, I gladly check this one off the list!

Edward Tanguay

Send your thoughts on this book to The Online Reading Club.
Find out which books we are currently reading.